Patterico's Pontifications

9/10/2003

CHECK THIS OUT: I suspect

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 5:30 pm

CHECK THIS OUT: I suspect that these optical illusions are more impressive when not viewed on your computer screen — where, after all, someone could be pulling some funny business to make the illusion happen.

Still, this is a cool site. (Via John Scalzi.) When you get to “The Sun,” experiment with hitting your down and up arrows one time, and watch what the sun does when you are doing it.

Also via Scalzi is this interesting article in New York Magazine, about 16 people who were inside the World Trade Center when it collapsed and lived to tell about it.

A POLL OF IRAQIS: The

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:51 am

A POLL OF IRAQIS: The results are in the WSJ, and they are interesting. (Registration required.)

CROOKED TALK: When a New

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:40 am

CROOKED TALK: When a New York Times editorial offers “straight talk,” it’s time to get suspicious. Today’s entry is titled Straight Talk on Judicial Nominees. It states: “Mr. Estrada would not answer senators’ questions. Mr. Pryor and Ms. Owens have met resistance for their archconservative views.”

Of course, the canard that Estrada would not answer questions is a lie, which I have discussed before. I will never let that canard pass without comment, no matter how many times I see it.

Also, I love it when newspaper editorial writers speak so very knowingly about judicial nominees and their views — but can’t even spell their names right. It’s actually “Owen,” you straight talkers, you. (The piece spells her name right two sentences earlier. If the editing is this sloppy, could the analysis possibly be sloppy too?)

Reminds me of the equally inane editorial I told you about in May where the Dog Trainer called her “Patricia Owen.”

What is it about this woman’s name that is so hard to get right?

And what is it about these newspapers that makes it so hard for them to tell you the truth about judicial nominees — even when they offer “straight talk”?

P.S.: The editorial says:

Hispanic leaders did not oppose Mr. Estrada because he is Hispanic.

Well, it’s good to know that Hispanic leaders didn’t oppose Estrada. I guess it stands to reason that their non-opposition came from a shared ethnicity. The editorial goes on:

Catholic senators like Richard Durbin and Patrick Leahy do not oppose William Pryor, a nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, because he is Catholic. Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer do not oppose Priscilla Owen, a nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, because she is a woman.

Now that seems like it’s going too far. It’s nice that some of us are Catholics, and some of us are women, but if you disagree with someone, by gosh, you should oppose them!

DEMO DEBATE: Watched the Congressional

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:00 am

DEMO DEBATE: Watched the Congressional Black Caucus/Fox News debate tonight. My favorite part was watching Joe Lieberman “getting down” with Al Sharpton. There’s just something plain fun about watching Joe saying: “Amen, brother!” More grist for my Lieberman impersonation.

Otherwise, the main fun was watching the LaRouche supporters hijacking the whole deal, sucking up the candidates’ time — and then watching Al Sharpton sucking up even more time by complaining about all the time that was getting sucked up.

The only booing I heard was when Lieberman spoke up on behalf of Israel.

The big surprise of the night: everyone agrees that George Bush sucks.

The second big surprise of the night: everyone agrees that government should do more for black people.

At least we weren’t treated to the spectacle we saw in the New Mexico debate: all the candidates painfully spitting out phrases in hideously broken Spanish.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1999 secs.